Decision of the Complaints Committee 03503-15 A woman v Dunfermline Press
Summary of
complaint
1. A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that the Dunfermline Press had breached Clause 7 (Children in sex
cases) and Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article published online and in print in April 2015.
2. The article reported that an individual had been
charged with sexual offences against a child. The complainant expressed concern
that the article contained details that would contribute to the identification
of the alleged victim.
3. The complainant also noted that the article had been
posted on the publication’s Facebook page, where it could be commented on by
Facebook users. This was irresponsible, and in doing so the newspaper had
exposed the child to the danger of identification. In fact an individual had
posted a story (from a source not regulated by IPSO) containing similar
information on his personal Facebook page, and the child had been identified by
commenters.
4. The newspaper did not accept a breach of the Code. It
had taken legal advice prior to publication of the print article, and did not
consider that any of the information included in either version could have led
to the identification of the child. It noted that the reporting of such cases
was in the public interest.
6. The newspaper had first become of aware of the
concerns when it had been contacted by an individual (later discovered to be
the complainant) expressing concern about the comments below the story on the
publication’s Facebook page. The news editor had then reviewed these comments,
and had not found any that were likely to contribute to the identification of
the alleged victim. Nonetheless, the article had been deleted from Facebook as
a gesture of goodwill. The newspaper could not be held responsible for the
comments posted by an individual on his personal Facebook page on an article
published by another news organisation.
Relevant Code Provisions
6. Clause 7 (Children in sex cases)
1. The press must not, even if legally free to do so,
identify children under 16 who are victims or witnesses in cases involving sex
offences.
2. In any press report of a case involving a sexual
offence against a child-
i) The child must not be identified.
ii) The adult may be identified.
iii) The word “incest” must not be used where a child
victim might be identified.
iv) Care must be taken that nothing in the report implies
the relationship between the accused and the child.
Clause 11(Victims of sexual assault)
The press must not identify victims of sexual assault or
publish material likely to contribute to their identification unless there is
adequate public interest and they are legally free to do so.
Findings of the Committee
7. The Committee acknowledged the tension between the
principle of open justice and the protection of children, enshrined within the
Code.
8. In this case, the article had not included details
which would contribute to the identification of the alleged victim. There was
no breach of Clause 7 or Clause 11. The Committee noted that it was constrained
in setting out its reasons for this conclusion in its published decision by the
need to ensure that it did not contribute to the victim’s identification in so doing.
9. The newspaper was not responsible for the comments
made identifying the child on social media, which had been posted on an
individual’s unmoderated page in relation to a different article (albeit one
that included substantially similar material).
10. Nonetheless, the Committee took this opportunity to
draw to editors’ attention the need for care in such cases to avoid creating a
forum for speculation as to the victim’s identity. While editors are not in a
position to constrain the circulation of links to stories and commentary on
them hosted on third-party websites, consideration should be given to whether
stories involving victims of sexual assault can safely be published on
publications’ social media sites – particularly where they will be open to
comments.
Conclusions
11. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 07/05/2015
Date decision issued: 27/07/2015